Jerry Sandusky convictions affirmed on post-conviction review, but resentencing ordered (on a Blakely/Alleyne issue)

This USA Today article, headlined "Court rules Jerry Sandusky should be resentenced after turning down his appeal," reports on the result of a high-profile (and lengthy) intermediate state-court ruling.  Here are the details:

Jerry Sandusky lost a bid for a new trial Tuesday but a Pennsylvania appeals court ordered him to be re-sentenced for a 45-count child molestation conviction. The former Penn State assistant football coach was sentenced in 2012 to 30 to 60 years, but a Superior Court panel said that included the improper application of mandatory minimums.

In a 119-page opinion , the appeals panel struck down argument after argument that lawyers for Sandusky, 75, had made in seeking a new trial. His defense lawyer, Al Lindsay, said he was disappointed but will ask the state’s highest court to reconsider.

Lindsay said he was unsure if the new sentencing is likely to result in a substantially different sentence. “I suppose it depends on the judge and what happens before the sentencing and after the sentencing,” Lindsay said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that jurors must consider anything that could result in a longer sentence, and such elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge, not jury, sentenced Sandusky.

The state attorney general’s office said it was pleased that Sandusky’s convictions remained intact. “The Superior Court has agreed with our office that it was proper for the court below to reject Sandusky’s claims,” said Joe Grace, a spokesman for the prosecutors. “We look forward to appearing for the new sentencing proceedings and arguing to the court as to why this convicted sex offender should remain behind bars for a long time.”

This description of the basis of the ruling suggests our old pal, the Sixth Amendment, played a role in the sentencing outcome.

A few prior related posts:

• Jerry Sandusky found guilty on 45 counts
• "Sandusky sentenced to 30 to 60 years"

UPDATE: I just came across this link to the full 119-page opinion in this appeal, and on page 118 one can find these sentences:

Appellant is entitled to application of Alleyne, notwithstanding his failure to raise this claim in the PCRA court.  Therefore, we agree with the parties that pursuant to the holdings in Alleyne and Wolfe, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences was illegal.  Therefore, Appellant is entitled to a remand for re-sentencing without application of any unlawful mandatory minimum sentences.